L. Guo, Jaroslav Flegr, Felix Sebastian Døssing, Dorothee Mischkowski, Zachary Horne, Rima-Maria Rahal, A. Herrero, Aba Szollosi, Daniel Navarro-Martinez, Petr Houdek, Jennifer S. Trueblood, Minou Ghaffari, Anthony M. Evans, Johannes Lohse, Susann Fiedler, K. Ø. Thor, A. E. van t Veer, Tess M. S. Neal, M. Warner, Roberto Hernán-González, Gustav Tinghög, Pablo Brañas-Garza, Oliver P. Hauser, Tiago O. Paiva, Antonio M. Espín, Erika Salomon, T. G. H. Chmura, Timo Goeschl, Lina Koppel, Eva Costa Martins, Fernando Ferreira-Santos, Kristian Ove R. Myrseth, Balazs Aczel, Barnabas Szaszi, Sumitava Mukherjee, Laurent Bègue, Peter P. J. L. Verkoeijen, J. J. Van Bavel, C. Mauro, Narayanan Srinivasan, Fernando Barbosa, A. Srivastava, Praveen Kujal, Marco Piovesan, Julian Wills, Magnus Johannesson, Bence Palfi, Daniel Västfjäll, Julie Novakova, Gert Cornelissen, Tei Laine, Samantha Bouwmeester, Conny Wollbrant, Andreas Glöckner, Erik Wengström, R. Pagà, Department of Social Psychology, Laboratoire Inter-universitaire de Psychologie : Personnalité, Cognition, Changement Social (LIP-PC2S ), Université Savoie Mont Blanc (USMB [Université de Savoie] [Université de Chambéry])-Université Grenoble Alpes [2016-2019] (UGA [2016-2019]), Departamento de Ecología e Hidrología, Universidad de Murcia, Aquaculture and Fisheries Group, Wageningen University and Research [Wageningen] (WUR), Molecular Biophysics Unit, Indian Institute of Science, Institute of Crop Science and Resource Conservation [Bonn] (INRES), Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn, Research Methods and Techniques, Faculdade de Psicologia e de Ciências da Educação, and Veritati - Repositório Institucional da Universidade Católica Portuguesa
In an anonymous 4-person economic game, participants contributed more money to a common project (i.e., cooperated) when required to decide quickly than when forced to delay their decision (Rand, Greene & Nowak, 2012), a pattern consistent with the social heuristics hypothesis proposed by Rand and colleagues. The results of studies using time pressure have been mixed, with some replication attempts observing similar patterns (e.g., Rand et al., 2014) and others observing null effects (e.g., Tinghög et al., 2013; Verkoeijen & Bouwmeester, 2014). This Registered Replication Report (RRR) assessed the size and variability of the effect of time pressure on cooperative decisions by combining 21 separate, preregistered replications of the critical conditions from Study 7 of the original article (Rand et al., 2012). The primary planned analysis used data from all participants who were randomly assigned to conditions and who met the protocol inclusion criteria (an intent-to-treat approach that included the 65.9% of participants in the time-pressure condition and 7.5% in the forced-delay condition who did not adhere to the time constraints), and we observed a difference in contributions of −0.37 percentage points compared with an 8.6 percentage point difference calculated from the original data. Analyzing the data as the original article did, including data only for participants who complied with the time constraints, the RRR observed a 10.37 percentage point difference in contributions compared with a 15.31 percentage point difference in the original study. In combination, the results of the intent-to-treat analysis and the compliant-only analysis are consistent with the presence of selection biases and the absence of a causal effect of time pressure on cooperation.